December 16, 2012

On "Fox News Sunday," Chris Wallace got Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman talking about the Sandy Hook massacre, specifically the question of violence in video games, movies and TV. Lieberman said violence in popular culture "does cause vulnerable young men, particularly, to be more violent," and "We’ve got to ask the entertainment industry, what are you going to do to try to tone that down."

Wallace asked whether this would be voluntary, and Lieberman said:

In our society we try to do it voluntarily. But I think we’ve come to a point where we have to say, if not, maybe there are some things we can do to tone it down.

So, in other words, not voluntary! Having let his authoritarian side show, Lieberman shifts to talking about "the mental health system" and says:

I think we really have got to ask ourselves, first, off, this is like the slogan that we use in Homeland Security -- see something, say something.

See something... like what?

We’ve got to ask parents, friends, school officials, if you see a child, a young person, that really looks like they are potentially... real troublesome, get them mental health help and we have to ask ourselves, as a society, is there enough mental health help available for these kids?

Troublesome! He should have said troubled, if he meant to talk about mental illness, and he paused before he said the word. A fascinating slip. Troubling!

154 comments:

Our sermon this morning was about all the violence kids see on TV before they are 18. And I was thinking, "oh, great, it's that damn Yosemite Sam, I knew it."

I know it was a sermon and all, but it was so damn preachy! Liberal sermons are the worst. At least right-wing sermons send you to hell. Liberal sermons send you to touch-feely space camp where we all drink the kool-aid.

Someone sent a personal email to me last night, claiming that they were from Newtown, CT and advised me to "shut the fuck up". Apparently my forthright comments on the frightening outlook for freedom in the aftermath of the school shooting are troublesome.

I guess if I keep writing uncomfortable things, I'll become too troublesome. Maybe I'll be put in one of the soon-to-be-revived State Hospitals.

"There is no cure... violence is as old as Cain killing his brother Abel. But God didn’t accept that as a given, and said, if I may, to Cain, where’s your brother? And Abel... Cain says, am I my brother’s keeper? And God says, yes, I hear your brother’s blood crying out to me from the ground. And I think we’ve got to continue to hear the screams of these children, and see their blood, until we do something to try to prevent this from happening again."

We need to hear those children crying out from the grave until we do something... like God heard Able. So, the govt is in the position of God and MUST act.

We do need families but we need them to act like the families of old and take care of their own instead of depending on the state to do it. Afterall, the state is run by longtime pols like the vastly over-rated Joe Lieberman and the over-the-hill aisle crosser John McCain and the haughty Frenchman, John Kerry. Is there a fresh idea or a good idea among them?

I was going to comment, but looked back at all the posts I missed yesterday / last night / today and figured it's already been covered.

It is easier to talk about gun "control" than the thorny problem of mental illness and individual rights.

As with the post about the woman who writes on HuffPo "I am Adam Lanza's mother" there is a disturbing and informative book called Crazy by the father of a young man who developed schizophrenia and what that means for families in the US today.

The violent gun use highlights a big problem which is not "fixed" by controlling (eliminating private gun ownership) guns.

We need to spend less time trying to restrict a right and more looking at ways to help people and families of the severely and often violent mentally ill, and thus our society.

After the movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" it seemed the goal of Mental Institutions to provide drugs to the deranged and mainstream them into society. Of course these folks, who were homeless the minute they left the back door, were told to not mix alcohol with the drugs they were supposed to take. Most of them ended up on railroad property in hobo jungles delivered by the police and sheriff departments from public streets. That program was/is a failure by any measurement. Good luck with our government agencies handling mental health cases in good financial times or poor. They are incapable of keeping us safe. Remember the "Twinkie" defense?

Say something? OK. There are a preponderance of fucking nutcases on the street in Madison. Back in my day it was Laurie Dann, today its at least several people taking her place. They look harmless, and may be harmless. But maybe not. And the task of discriminating between the two is not easy.

I believe that the mentally troubled become troublesome when they become a clear and present danger for causing violent trouble to others.

Troublesome is not a slip of the tongue in that context.It accurately describes Eric Harris, Jared Laughner, Maj. Nidal Hasan, John Holmes, Adam Lanza and all the way back to the Texas Tower shooter that started acting crazy and thought he had brain tumors (and the autopsy showed he did).

Pompous ass though he may have been, Jack Paar, when asked what he thought about bad TV programs, gave the best answer imaginable, "I've never seen one because my set has an On/Off switch and a station selector".

Apply that to movies, music (rap, of course, doesn't even qualify), and computer content, and people will get the message.

Jake Diamond said...

see something, say something

Well, since the topic has been raised, I've noticed that edutcher is batshit crazy. Maybe one of his fellow Althouse lemmings should get him some help.

Shilol is off his meds again, although it confirms that he would have fit right in with Vlad and the reast of the gang at the KGB.

It's hard to understand how one of America's major political parties can be so dominated by anti-science lunatics.

Lieberman is an "Independent," but yeah, Republicans have been anti-science since Reagan.

Considering they think evolution is written in stone and global warming is gospel, the idea that the Lefties have the gall to call anybody anti-science is pot and kettle on steroids.

Marshal said...There's no science linking video games to increased violence. It's hard to understand how one of America's major political parties can be so dominated by anti-science lunatics==================Bullshit. Study after study shows immersion in teaching and data given of any sort from HS civics to ministers homilies to killing 38 people on your gameboy playing Mortal Kombat - produces norms of behavior in individuals. And states and 100s of billions spent by states and private ndustry "advertising" each year - shows propaganda can reliably steer mass behavior.

Geez. You really seem, er, troubled by the relationship between "troubled" and "troublesome." I suppose you must be really worried about the idea that we could confuse the threat one poses to others with the threat one poses to oneself.

In a law-abiding and rights-respecting society, however, we assume that the threat one poses to others is ultimately a threat to oneself.

Of course it's possible to pose a threat to oneself without posing a threat to others, but the relationship between those scenarios is clear enough for excessive permissiveness when it comes to either to be an irresponsible position for a lawmaker to take.

Alex said...So basically Lieberman is for having informants in every family, just like the USSR.

And Althouse and Meade apparantly like dogs - just like Hitler!!

There is a thing called social responsibility. Not that we rat out one another for any violation of law - but that we look after one another. And that certainly includes the collective desire to keep madwoman and madmen in check so they do not kill or maim others. IMO, parents and medical professionals should have the responsibility to inform authorities on people they determine to be clear and present dangers to others..and keep guns secured from them, among other things. If laws have to change to modify HIPAA or prosecute the father of a Klebold who knew his son was hoarding weapons and making bombs - so be it.

Yeah, did you hear what God said would happen if anyone tried to get Cain? Basically, Cain's punishment by God was to be a homeless guy. And if anyone tried to take revenge on Cain they'd suffer seven times the punishment.

So, I'm all for Congress enacting laws where they'd have to personally be punished seven times as much as anyone they deem as pre-violent.

Lieberman is an "Independent," but yeah, Republicans have been anti-science since Reagan.

Um, really?

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

A: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.

-----then-Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008

All the big brains mock and belittle the Ten Commandments and it never occurs to the relativist big brains that only a self-controlled people, which is to say a people that has internalized certain absolutes, the first of which is Thou Shalt Not Kill, only such a people will need little in the way of external controls and regulations to maintain a safe civil society.

This is exactly right. We can only punish people after the fact. There is no "cure" for free will.

But God didn’t accept that as a given, and said, if I may, to Cain, where’s your brother? And Abel... Cain says, am I my brother’s keeper?

Lieberman is mangling this parable in a really bad way. It's a parable about free will, and our duty to love one another. It's also a parable about the nature of evil, and how there will always be evil.

"Where's your brother?"

This question seems to suggest that God is not omniscient. He doesn't know where Abel is. He has to ask Cain what happened to his brother. One way of reading this is that God doesn't know for sure. Not only is God (implicitly) not all-knowing, but he's not omnipotent, either. Cain killed Abel, and God didn't stop it.

And yet, maybe that's too simplistic. Maybe God knows full well what Cain has done.

I hear your brother’s blood crying out to me from the ground.

So God is omniscient. He knows what Cain has done. His question is both an accusation and an expression of heartbreak over the loss of his child.

But God didn’t accept that as a given

This is wrong on so many levels. The parable is about spirituality, and our duty to love one another. "Am I my brother's keeper?" is a reminder to all of us about how selfish we are.

And I think we’ve got to continue to hear the screams of these children

Althouse's criticism is spot on. Lieberman is putting the government in the position of God. The state should play the role of ultimate authority. And punish those people who don't care enough!

And Lieberman is suggesting too that evil can be fixed and vanquished by the state.

When Leiberman was running as Gore's Veep, he had been pushing for regulation of movies and other entertainment; the moment he needed money from those people, it be became "Oh, we wouldn't make any laws, we might try to nudge you along."

We need to do several things. First, we need to teach people to respect individual dignity. Second, we need to teach people that human life has intrinsic value from conception (i.e. biological or conscious) to grave.

We need to preserve competing interests in society. We cannot permit a minority interest (e.g. government) to consolidate power and capital. It is a plurality of interests (ultimately individuals) which keeps the honest people honest and others from running amuck.

We need to raise the level of risk and increase the opportunity cost perceived by potential criminals. The criminal should not know that his targets are unarmed and vulnerable. This is the initial deterrent.

The potential victims should be capable of acting in self-defense, which means some of them must be armed. This is also a continuing deterrent. It will be effective against the life-affirming criminal and psychopath equally. As the latter is unlikely to favor being wounded and captured alive.

We cannot capriciously and selectively recognize liberty. We cannot defer our dignity and lives to a minority of people and hope that they are invulnerable to corruption. We cannot trust that they will not unilaterally resort to involuntary exploitation or denigration of individual dignity in order to advance and preserve their own positions.

A female commentator "makabit" over @ Harry's Place has a great hilarious rant on this subj when talking about screening children to find the sociopaths--a rant "Rob in Madison" commenting on site calls "hysterically funny" and "not without content":

"Yes, in a country where we have a bare minimum of access to any kind of healthcare, we will screen all the schoolchildren for murderous tendencies. This can be done on the cheap by exhausted, overworked public employees with BA's in Psychology and a checklist. Once we've identified them, they will be stripped of their rights as citizens, GPS tagged, and possibly be used in medical experiments. We'll all be safe then. Except from the ones whose parents were affluent and sophisticated enough to get their kid classified as 'special' rather than 'batshit crazy,' who will bear a striking resemblance to the middle-class white boy who is already the profile for this sort of shooter.

So Dumbmond (hey, he calls everybody else dumb) proves once again he needs somebody to explain it to him.

OK, here we go; I said the Lefties act as if evolution were cast in stone and, as such, are proving themselves the last ones to call anyone else anti-science.

If Dumbmond actually picked up a book (one without anything but pictures), he might read Darwin was the first to concede his theory (and that's all it is) had a lot of gaps in it and he hoped future discoveries would fill those gaps (actually, the exact opposite has happened).

Thus, Dumbmond and his Lefty friends who tell him to run over here and regurgitate their idiocies have never taken the trouble to find out what's in evolution, but they piously (and pompously) ask anyone they want to look intellectually inferior to them (an impossibility) if they "believe" in evolution when the correct question is, do they understand the concept of evolution as expressed by Darwin.

Which they obviously don't.

PS Considering Dumbmond can't talk to anybody without getting nasty, he's the last one to say who's crazy.

Actually, no. They treat evolution as science, and they accept science, unlike Republicans. If you need a reminder, I can post the idiotic things the Republican presidential contenders said about the subject of evolution.

Darwin was the first to concede his theory (and that's all it is) had a lot of gaps in it and he hoped future discoveries would fill those gaps (actually, the exact opposite has happened).

This is typical ignorance and denial from edumbshit. The idea that evolutionary theory is weaker than when Darwin proposed it is lunacy. You'd have to overlook over 150 years of scientific research and discoveries, including the development of genetics, to say something as wrongheaded and idiotic as edumbshit has.

It's safe to say that edumbshit is absolutely clueless about what constitutes evolutionary theory. His statement that scientific advancements have weakened the case for evolution shows how incredibly ignorant he is about science and, well, just about everything else.

Now, with my permission, edumbshit will tell you why he doesn't believe in statistics. Welcome to life in the right wing bubble!

I get pretty bored sitting and listening to a sermon. I don't really like lectures in general. The only speech/lecture I've ever heard that was truly awesome was Akhil Amar.

So I'm not a huge fan of any church sermon. What's a lot of fun, to me, is Sunday school or Bible study. That's more of a seminar than a lecture. Lots and lots of conversation and back and forth discussion. It's pretty awesome. One might say, it's Althousian!

This year we studied The Screwtape Letters, which is one of my favorite books. Then we did The Prodigal God, which was very provocative. Keller disconnects Christianity from morality and argues that it's really about love. That whole book is about the story of the prodigal son. Really good.

And before edumbshit offers up another scoop of denial, a Gallup poll from June of this year found that almost 60% of Republicans believe that "God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years" (i.e., Young Earth Creationism).

Lieberman is an "Independent," but yeah, Republicans have been anti-science since Reagan.

And yet it was Donna Brazile and Joe Klein and the MD Rep. Donna Edwards who were on about video games on ABC's "This Week" today. Go fig.

Incidentally, that production was unbelievably, cluelessly tactless. I missed the first few minutes, so I don't know exactly what primary-school library they unaccountably decided to hold the filming in, but ... jeez, people, show some common sense. The between-segment music with its ostentatious "heartbeat" was nearly as bad.

What I have presented is the beginning, not the end of the conversation. What I propose is capable of preserving individual dignity and liberty, mitigating the occurrence and consequences of criminal action, with a low to moderate cost to individuals and society. There are other practical measures (e.g. locking a cockpit door) which should also be considered.

I have enjoyed Palladian's commentary the last few days. It's been a sobering antidote when my initial impulse was to argue for locking up all the loons.

I knew several kids in high school who would have fit into the 'troubled' mold. None of them ever acted violently. Realizing there's been, what, 26 mass killings in 40 years makes me think you cannot possibly identify who is going to snap. Or even who's likely to snap. The thought of intervening with any of those gothic losers from high school seems silly. But of course if one did run off the rails, we'd think it was silly that nobody did intervene.

I think for a lot of liberals evolution is a matter of faith. If you're an atheist, for instance, you believe strongly in evolution. You have to, because you deny God. So a lot of liberals are rather, shall we say, passionate on the subject.

Global warming and the gay gene are two areas where liberals are as dogmatic as anybody. In general I see liberals loving on Darwin when they can bash Christianity with it, and they throw Darwin under the bus when it comes to actual human reproduction and genetics.

Liberals did the same thing with Freud. They like Freud when they use him to attack Christianity, morality, right-and-wrong, crime and punishment. But they hate Freud for his respect for human sexuality, nature and biology.

Liberals use science for political ends, and so they are quite capable of ignoring or suppressing science for the same reason.

I cannot comprehend how anyone can deny the influence of our incredibly violent media. What kind of moron do you have to be to think that imbibing all that rampant violence will not affect you psychologically on some level? What vicious, disgusting people exist in the right now, to attack each other simply for having viewpoints that do not correspond with our own. I see this especially among the liberal monsters, the liberal maniacs, the liberal beasts! I am a mother of three children, and I am as of this point forward monitoring EVERYTHING that my children watch on that brain rot known as tv.

It does not mean, either explicitly or implicitly, that it was in fact Cain's job to take care of Abel.

I think it's an indictment of a certain callousness, a hardness of heart in regard to his brother. The Bible is concerned with spirituality, not economic policy. It's not an argument for socialism. But it is an argument to have love in your heart for your fellow man.

See also Pontius Pilate.

To say that "Cain killed his brother" is right. But I believe this parable is about far more than some guy covering up a crime. "Am I my brother's keeper?" is powerful rhetoric. It's a challenge to us to look into our own hearts.

BTW - What I really find troubling is the never ending tendency of politicians to view totalitarian policies and practices as the answer to every problem.

While the killings in Newtown are a horrific tragedy, let's not forget just how rare it is, and how rare people who commit such acts are. That our population has grown by over 125 million people since 1960. More people and denser population contributes to more crime even if not necessarily higher crime rates.

"And before edumbshit offers up another scoop of denial, a Gallup poll from June of this year found that almost 60% of Republicans believe that "God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years" (i.e., Young Earth Creationism)."

I have to wonder who conducted that study. I am a long-time Republican, and I can think of only two people who think that insofar as I am aware. One of them is an extreme lefty Democrat.

Actually, no. They treat evolution as science, and they accept science, unlike Republicans. If you need a reminder, I can post the idiotic things the Republican presidential contenders said about the subject of evolution.

Lefties treat evolution as what they want it to be to justify their own world view and to give them a feeling of superiority over not only people of faith, but people who are actually better read. Republicans talked about faith as much as science. Dumbmond fails to grasp this concept or, worse, simply goes off some screed he found on Kos as took as gospel without offering any critical reflection.

Darwin was the first to concede his theory (and that's all it is) had a lot of gaps in it and he hoped future discoveries would fill those gaps (actually, the exact opposite has happened).

This is typical ignorance and denial from edumbshit. The idea that evolutionary theory is weaker than when Darwin proposed it is lunacy. You'd have to overlook over 150 years of scientific research and discoveries, including the development of genetics, to say something as wrongheaded and idiotic as edumbshit has.

No, little moron, you can go to something as elemental as Wiki and it bears this out. And we're talking archaeology and anthropology, not genetics, going back millions of years.

Among other things, Darwin thought that the component structures of an organism, such as the eye would evolve with it and he hoped future fossil discoveries would vindicate that.

Sad to say, things like the eye simply appear at one point in time without any trail of evolving.

Lefties hate this because it tends to vindicate a Biblical view of Creation or, at least, open the door to a more (dare I say it?) nuanced view of Creation.

As to Gallup, our little fool refuses to note that a plurality of Indies also agree God created man as is and Demos tie with those who view God guided the process.

Considering what an embarrassment this man is, it's a wonder the Koskidz let him out.

PS Considering Dumbmond seems incapable of holding a conversation with anyone without descending into invective when someone disagrees with him, as I say, his friends (if he has any) need to sign him up for some help immediately.

I have no doubt that a lot more Republicans than Democrats are creationists. That does not mean that the Republican Party is anti-science. It means, my lefty, creationist friend notwithstanding, that Republicans are more tolerant than Democrats of diverse viewpoints.

Exactly. Both laymen and experts often fail to distinguish between what constitutes science and philosophy (or religion). With respect to evolution, they embrace an article of faith, description of origin, while simultaneously rejecting a basic principle -- which can be tested and reproduced -- evolutionary fitness. They are selective in both their faith and objectivity. Typically for cause of material, ego, or physical gratification. This selective acknowledgement of reality for personal interest poses the same threat to individuals, society, and humanity, as the selective acknowledge of God's laws did historically.

So, today it is selective acknowledgement of nature's laws, and it is done for the same reason and with the same consequences. The principal role (e.g. communism, socialism, imperialism, abortion) of atheists and secular individuals in the loss of life and liberty throughout the 20th century and continuing in the 21st century is unmatched by any group in history other than perhaps Muslims, but what the latter achieved over a period exceeding a thousand years, the former achieved in less than a century.

Except, violent crime is down. We live in a less violent society. Those in power and pundits of all times and political views seize on extreme outlying events to justify their tyranny.

The cold reality is that a percentage of the population are sociopaths. They terrorize their family and neighbors and sometimes, it spills out into the open with awful results. It is made all the more stark by living in a relatively peaceful, healthy time and place.

This isn't justified by any means, but neither should it be an excuse to strip us from even more civil liberties. The true irony of what the Liebermans of the world advocate is that the results will be all together worse. Tyranny simply doesn't result in nirvana.

It means, my lefty, creationist friend notwithstanding, that Republicans are more tolerant than Democrats of diverse viewpoints.

You must be dizzy after spinning so much. Republicans more tolerant? Laughable!

The facts are straightforward: Conservatives are more than three times more likely than liberals to believe that the Bible is literally true. That's not an indication of tolerance; that's an indication of science denial.

Of course, as a tolerant person, I don't really care if these yokels want to believe in Young Earth Creationism or pixie dust for that matter. But I do insist on truth in advertising, and that requires the current GOP to be labeled as "anti-science."

We need to preserve competing interests in society. We cannot permit a minority interest (e.g. government) to consolidate power and capital. It is a plurality of interests (ultimately individuals) which keeps the honest people honest and others from running amuck.

I really like this. My view is that large collections of power, be it in government, individual hands, or corporations, is a dangerous thing.

One of the left's axiomatic inconsistencies is they recognize the destructive power of corporations that are monopolistic, and even wealthy individuals who wield too much power. And they are right about both, it's dangerous and anti-progress, but they fail to understand their solution is even worse. Have the biggest monopoly of them all, the US Federal Government, control it all!

St. Croix, you should be ashamed for posting that link to Behe. The single-most important advance in biochemistry was Watson and Crick's 1953 Nature article describing the structure of DNA, and every advance in molecular biology since then - (including that one) - is not possible without accepting evolution. Genes, pseudogenes, gene duplication, "junk" DNA, sequence motifs - you name it. Nature "builds" in as much redundancy as possible, because that's how random mutation combined with natural (or artificial) selection works.

The molecular clocks that we can now use to time speciation events based on stable rates of genetic change have been especially useful. And they fit right in with the statistics that can show how recently a genetic change occurred based on the amount of "noise" around it or not - as less variation shows the recency of its acquisition and the value with which it was prized by the species.

Entire branches of knowledge and understanding are rendered completely moot by instead arbitrarily insisting that invisible hands came out from the Heavens in order to plop divergent species onto the planet. To say nothing of the fact that genetic change is the same mechanism employed by cancer cells. Yet I somehow don't see you Creationists reverting to classical type and claiming the hand of The "Creator" in, creating, you know, those little morsels of moral delight that we call tumors.

Just get a grip already on the anti-evolution nonsense. It is nothing more than just that. Although I can understand its appeal to inbreds, who imagine long lines of ancestors missing the same number of teeth, chromosomes and physical markers of good health that they might lack.

And they are right about both, it's dangerous and anti-progress, but they fail to understand their solution is even worse. Have the biggest monopoly of them all, the US Federal Government, control it all!

Right. Because being democratically accountable to the people is soooo much worse.

Better to quietly accept private sector tyranny than to control it publicly, eh?

It's feudalism right at its core, this bootlicking impulse to praise a petty non-governmental bully for being a hassle to the king. Back then they called them "Lords", though. Lord Blankfein, Lord Romney, Lord Koch. Just call them what you really think of them. Make the language accurate and historically meaningful. And give them an entire chamber of parliament, too. You know, so as to not institutionalize government control over them. Yeah.

"When asked if they thought Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election this year or if ACORN stole it for him, 24% responded that they did steal the election for him, while 60% thought he won legitimately and 10% were unsure. Half of the Republicans polled (49%) thought ACORN stole the election.

It's interesting (and fitting!) that edumbshit cites this poll result, because it confirms what dumbshits Republicans are. People who aren't ignorant know that ACORN folded in 2010. That's right... ACORN no longer exists! But that doesn't mean that Republicans can't blame a nonexistent organization as part of their reality-denial campaign.

But edumbshit's reality denial goes a step further. He insists that almost all the polls were wrong, except for the polls that showed Romney winning (Rasmussen!), and that in fact, Romney won in a landslide but the election was stolen as a result of massive, widespread voter fraud. Of course he doesn't have any evidence of massive voter fraud, but he feels it in his gut, and that's good enough for him!

It's feudalism right at its core, this bootlicking impulse to praise a petty non-governmental bully for being a hassle to the king. Back then they called them "Lords", though. Lord Blankfein, Lord Romney, Lord Koch.

You must have a pretty narrow will if you think the way they change your economic prospects and opportunities in America is not a personal thing.

I will a lower price-point for renewables, less subsidies for oil and gas and a better public education system in North Carolina, but understand full well that Lord Koch has deemed these priorities to be inappropriate to his own personal interests, and hence the rest of our economic choices.

Funny how conservatives rail against George Soros for demonstrating the weaknesses of various national currencies but not against robber-barons in our own country who hold back entire industries for their own purposes.

Inga said... Yes Jake, that is what Michael is all about, it comes out in almost every single one of his comments. This while there is a memorial service for those who were killed in progress.

Note that Inga supports her fellow troll who is guilty of everything she claims of Michael. Insults are disrespectful today unless made against the right. Then they're worthy of support. She tries to hide that she's a propogandist but it keeps slipping out.

"When asked if they thought Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election this year or if ACORN stole it for him, 24% responded that they did steal the election for him, while 60% thought he won legitimately and 10% were unsure. Half of the Republicans polled (49%) thought ACORN stole the election.

It's interesting (and fitting!) that edumbshit cites this poll result, because it confirms what dumbshits Republicans are. People who aren't ignorant know that ACORN folded in 2010.

Well, too bad the man made of dumbshit doesn't know ACORN's still around under different names and its partner in grime, SEIU, is certainly among the living.

Not to mention the fact the man made of dumbshit ignores the finding the 24% of the American people as a whole say the election was stolen.

Address that one, moron.

But edumbshit's reality denial goes a step further. He insists that almost all the polls were wrong, except for the polls that showed Romney winning (Rasmussen!), and that in fact, Romney won in a landslide but the election was stolen as a result of massive, widespread voter fraud.

Not just Ras, they all had the Romster 5 points ahead a week out.

The man made of dumbshit knows this, but. like everything else, he ignores what he doesn't want to face.

Of course he doesn't have any evidence of massive voter fraud, but he feels it in his gut, and that's good enough for him!

Oh, thank you for that opening.

Lessee now,

The states with voter ID laws were won by the Romster.

The states without voter ID laws were won by Choom.

Throw in 140% turnout in some counties, 100% of the vote going for Choom in some precincts, voting machines flipping 10% of the Romney votes to Choomie, and it's got nothing to do with the new demographics or Axelrod keeping the white vote home (what a crock!).

Ritmo. Take a ride on the railroad one fine day down to Philadelphia. Observe the cesspools you lefties ignore lining the swift Acela's tracks from Newark on into the city of brotherly love. You really love yourself deeply but you ignore the world your lovely theories have built. A blue state salary of 44k gets you not so much in comparison with the 38k in the reds where life is good and the people happy and not so deeply impressed with themselves.

ACORN is gone. Other organizations aren't ACORN. In other words, as a matter of fact, ACORN couldn't have been involved in voter fraud in 2012. Of course, in the fantasy world of edumbshit and other Republicans, facts don't matter. Denial has no use for facts.

and its partner in grime, SEIU, is certainly among the living.

SEIU is not ACORN. However, if your excuse is that you and your fellow conspiracy theory dumbshit Republicans are idiots, then just say so explicitly.

Not to mention the fact the man made of dumbshit ignores the finding the 24% of the American people as a whole say the election was stolen.

Or to put it in proper context, 49% of Republicans. So if your point is that your loony conspiracy theory is accepted by a substantial group of really stupid and ignorant people, well yes, that's obvious. But trying to argue that your theory is sensible because a bunch of idiots agree with it isn't a very compelling argument. Amusing but not compelling.

Keep trying though. Maybe if you scream long enough and loud enough the GOP will dumb down even more to accommodate you.

And, to whom will these "troublesome" folk be reported? Only a matter of time until a school protection force of government agents is proposed. We have a wonderful blueprint available in the TSA.

This is exactly what is going to happen. I just got a "411" call from our public school superintendent that began with "Just as 9/11 changed everything, the events of this past Friday have changed everything." They are going to have policemen in all of our schools now while they "decided on a permanent security plan." He sounded rather shaken in the recording.

Oh, I read what you wrote, Michael. Just because you have no convictions, that doesn't mean you can weasel your way out of what you said. Your slippery self can't coherently reconcile one of your statements with the other, but that's because both sides of your fat mouth operate independently of each other.

You are truly a bullshit artisan. A fine craftsman of stanky castles of manure.

Oh hey, that's a nice try, but unfortunately your claim isn't true. So aside from the fact that you're wrong again, you make a great argument there in support of a theory that requires filtering out facts.

Ritmo. To say that republicans are richer and happier than lefties is not to say that the poor are sad and liberal. Only a poorly educated and sanctimonious idiot would make such a bush league logical error. Embarassing actually.

Sydney, good. I hope that's the plan nationwide. I'm worried about my grandchildren from now until they conclude school for the Holidays, I'm sure there are millions of parents and grandparents terrified of copycat killers.

We need a plan to keep our kids safe, what else matters in this life but our loved ones?

ACORN is gone. Other organizations aren't ACORN. In other words, as a matter of fact, ACORN couldn't have been involved in voter fraud in 2012. Of course, in the fantasy world of edumbshit and other Republicans, facts don't matter. Denial has no use for facts.

The man made of dumshit speaks from his long experience in Egypt. No, ACORN's still here, decentralized, but it's still around.

and its partner in grime, SEIU, is certainly among the living.

SEIU is not ACORN. However, if your excuse is that you and your fellow conspiracy theory dumbshit Republicans are idiots, then just say so explicitly.

Right, when in doubt just deny. SEIU wouldn't dream of doing the same stuff as ACORN, even though they were joined at the hip.

Not to mention the fact the man made of dumbshit ignores the finding the 24% of the American people as a whole say the election was stolen.

Or to put it in proper context, 49% of Republicans. So if your point is that your loony conspiracy theory is accepted by a substantial group of really stupid and ignorant people

No, the substantial group of really stupid and ignorant people are OZero supporters like you. At no point does the poll conflate the 24% solely with Republicans, but, fact is, if 24% of this country sees the election as a fraud, regardless of who they are, your Little Messiah (and you) have a real problem.

But keep on belching about it. The more we talk about it and I display the evidence, the more people will revisit it and think about it.

they all had the Romster 5 points ahead a week out.

Oh edumbshit, do you really believe that or are you just pulling shit out of your ass again?

In other words, what about all the polls that you have to ignore/dismiss to create your fiction?

I see we're changing the subject again.

OK, sweetheart, one last time and then the attendants come for you with the fluffy white coat with the sleeves that tie in the back.

Ras, Gallup, and all the biggies had the Romster ahead 5 a week out - even guys like phx were going all conciliatory and your alter ego, shilol, was in hiding - and then, suddenly, miraculously, Little Zero goes to Jersey for a photo op after getting his ass kicked for a month, and we're supposed to believe there's this amazing metamorphosis (that means change) and Choom zooms ahead.

The opposite of richer is poorer. If you say a republican is richer then you are saying a non-republican is less rich. That is elementary logic. It also happens to be completely untrue.

As for happier? Who can know these things. You seem to say that Republicans are happier with less, and I think that would actually be a good thing. But the problem is that they seem to be happier doing less, and that is pathetic. Leisure and laziness are two different things, but Republicans don't seem to know the difference.

Ritmo. Stop digging. Your logic needs work. What you just typed does not comport with your earlier assertion. You should also be aware that geography does not track political affiliation and economic well being in the way your brain wrongly thinks.

There are other ways to achieve that metric. You will find more left-wing people at the top of the wealth and income scale than you will find right-wing people. Right wing people teeter out at around the six-figure range. Among millionaires and billionaires, though, you start to see more left-wing people creep into the mix. As for why this is, I don't care to speculate - but it probably has to do with how uncreative conservatives are. They do not dominate fields like entertainment or the most innovative/disruptive technology.

And yes, you are still a slippery (and anti-empirical) douche.

So the real question is, why would any of this matter to you? You will say anything you feel necessary to further your own self-narrative. Truth is not your concern; vindication and a sense of triumph is.

There are other ways to achieve that metric. You will find more left-wing people at the top of the wealth and income scale than you will find right-wing people.

Makes sense that those wealthy people tend Democrat, doesn't it? Take people's money, and spend it. Forced spending. It hyper inflates commerce, and rewards the ownership class. And when you can't get enough of that money out of the current set of workers, you can always borrow it from future worker's productivity.

Republicans need to stop holding on to ideals, and screw the rich. It's a perfect opportunity, right now.

I actually knew what you were saying before, Dante. But am not sure what you're trying to get at now. Regardless, I'm a bit concerned about your interest in my penis. That might not be a healthy curiosity on your part.

Republicans never had ideals, Dante. They just pretend to so that they can get Evangelicals and nationalists to vote for them. The elites among them, for instance, are more likely to be atheist. They won't stop the availability of abortion or contraception for those among them with means, but this keeps the issue alive and kicking for the more populist right-wingers.

Your bit on taxes is a piece of ignorance par excellence. It's the Republicans who would raise taxes (and decrease services) for the poor and middle class for the sake of give-aways to the top. Democrats, as well as moderates and a great majority of the country, understand that this is economic folly.

Republicans kept recovery efforts at bay in order to blame the economy's performance on Obama. It didn't work; he won. But we still have an unemployment rate at least one percentage point higher because of them as they made sure to keep municipal and state workers from being employed. It didn't do much of anything for those budgets, and economic growth remained constrained. Shows you their true intentions. Even Republicans on this very website have told me that there is nothing wrong with wreaking havoc on the economy if it can improve one's political fortunes.

Here's a piece of advice Dante, for the non-neurotypical. When someone admits to a very scurrilous accusation, and does so without the slightest hint of irony or concern, take him at his word. He is admitting to you that he has no scruples, that he doesn't care, and that he will dare you to do anything about it.

Michael equally suffers from this very problem in very large measure. But he is more sly about it.

The single-most important advance in biochemistry was Watson and Crick's 1953 Nature article describing the structure of DNA, and every advance in molecular biology since then - (including that one) - is not possible without accepting evolution.

Behe accepts evolution. But he also makes a lot of interesting arguments. He's very much an outside-the-box thinker. (Unlike, say, Ritmo).

Here is Behe arguing that intelligent design is actually a scientific theory (i.e. one that can be disproven) while the atheist theory of creation you pretty much have to take on faith. I find that argument rather mind-blowing and very amusing.

Teleological arguments are only falsifiable if you identify a realm of reality (not the supernatural) in which a designing personality exists. And who designed the designer? Oh, right. Turtles all the way down. We've seen this before.

Anyway, nice to see Behe get all philosophical on us. But Miller-Urey did one better than falsifiability. They actually recreated the experiment and showed possibility and probability of design-free life creation.

Finally, Behe's obsession with flagella as holistically engineered components has been debunked time and again. See the internets for details.

Sorry to bore you and relegate my passion for creativity to the natural world.

I have no problem with the idea of a God. I have a big problem with using him as an excuse for one's ignorance of the world.

Republicans, the ones who lost 600K American lives to end slavery. Got it.

Seriously, I wouldn't mind having a reasonable discussion about these things. However, you can't start by saying "We object to collections of power," and then say "Except by the state." That's a non-starter. States have been proven to kill lots of people when they attain lots of power.

Geez Dante. If you have to go back in time 150 years to redeem something, way past the Southern Strategy, for instance (look up "Lee Atwater" if you're unfamiliar), then what's the use?

And then there's this little gem about being reasonable that immediately deviates into a diatribe about the U.S. becoming the next genocidal kleptocracy. Sorry, equating the U.S. to North Korea and Nazi Germany is not reasonable.

But if you knew something about Lee Atwater's brand of Republicanism you'd understand what really stood in the way of that. Not him and not his clients.

Tell me what you believe Lincoln would have thought about that twerp, though.

It's the Republicans who would raise taxes (and decrease services) for the poor and middle class for the sake of give-aways to the top.

This can't stand. This is Bull Shit.

Ritmo, you can't have it all ways.

Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan came up with the Devil's deal that reamed the middle class, by increasing Social Security taxes under Ronald Reagan. But it was Democrats that expanded social services. That was a $1.5T theft of the middle class. The money was spent on Programs. And so far as I can tell, there is next to zero return.

BTW, the 600 thousand weren't all Union deaths - or anything close to it, but who's counting, right?

No, just 600K white lives. Or more, according to the NYT. 700K + white lives, to deal with the issue of black slaves.

Do you have a point? The confederacy rebelled because an anti-slavery white guy was elected president. The dispute over slavery cost over a half million white lives. Republicans carried the banner for anti-slavery, and you feel justified in your stupid comment: "Republicans never had ideals, Dante."

Why don't you simply qualify your factually incorrect statement? It might make for interesting discussion, such as "This was where the break occurred."

This has been going on since the agreement. It shifted taxation from the wealthy (according to you, Democrats), to working folks. The minimum tax on income is 14.4% up to $108K due to this deal. The wealthiest 400 Americans in 2010 paid 17% income tax.

Now, think about this, and tell me if this was a good deal or not. Who cut the deal. Why hasn't the press, Democrats, or anyone else talked about this massive theft from the middle class?

If all you have is stupid snark, that's it. Really, this will be our last communication. Try, try, try, as much as you can, but if you don't want to discuss the reality, there isn't much point.

That is, I'm not particularly interested in being "mad" because it is fun. I'd much rather have a discussion of positions and what makes them up, rather than throwing out bait.

"I will a lower price-point for renewables, less subsidies for oil and gas and a better public education system in North Carolina, but understand full well that Lord Koch has deemed these priorities to be inappropriate to his own personal interests, and hence the rest of our economic choices."

So, you WILL that "renewables" were cheaper, that taxes on oil/gas industry were distriminatory and that somehow the education was better in North Carolina. But evil Koch is not making renewables cheaper, or making education better. It's all his fault, dammit. Notice that nothing that you mentioned has anything to do with individual choice of yours - you just have dreams of the big government doins something (ordering the prices, taking money from businesses and somehow fixing education). You don't bother asking yourself - given that renewables are expensive to produce, how could prices be low? Blank out. You want to discriminate against oil and gas? By what right? Blank out. You wish education in North Carolina be better? How? Money taken from whom? Blank out.

You sound like a thief, who wants to take other people's property, and complains that people lock their houses. Those evil rich Koch brothers, how dare they? Of course you deserve your every dream to come true, and if someone does not want to help you - they are evil feudals. Like the Koch Brothers. Pure evil, those brothers.

"It's the Republicans who would raise taxes (and decrease services) for the poor and middle class for the sake of give-aways to the top."

Ahm. Poor pay no federal income taxes, and they maybe pay some social security taxes. And they get a lot of handouts. It's amazing how handouts and alms are called "services", and the right to keep what you earned "give-aways". The parasites and the creators - who is evil? The creators, of course, they are not giving enough to the parasites. And whatever the creators are allowed to keep - all of that is a give away. Unfair, cause the poor want more.

"If you have to go back in time 150 years to redeem something, way past the Southern Strategy, for instance (look up "Lee Atwater" if you're unfamiliar), then what's the use?"

The party of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and rev.Wright are talking about racism. Sigh. We can argue about the "southern strategy", but it's undeniable that the DNC uses the racism of affirmative action to get the votes. Now, affirmative action and bussing is right here, in front of everyone, the naked racism and discrimination - and yet, we are supposed to discuss some mythical "Southern Strategy"?

"Pew Research conducted a national presidential poll that had both President Obama and Mitt Romney at 47% nationally among likely voters. However, Obama did have a slight lead of 2 points among registered voters. Obama was at 47% compared to 45% among registered voters. Pew Research released their national presidential poll late yesterday, Monday, October 29, 2012."

And this:

"CBS News/NY Times conducted a national presidential poll that had President Obama with a 1 point lead. Obama was at 48% compared to 47% for Romney. Voters that remain undecided were at 3% nationally. CBS News/NY Times released their national presidential poll October 30, 2012."

And this:

"Rasmussen Reports presidential tracking poll had Mitt Romney with a 2 point lead. President Obama was at 47% compared to 49% for Romney. Third party candidates were at 2% and undecided voters were at 3% nationally. Rasmussen Reports released their presidential tracking poll this morning, Wednesday, October 31, 2012."

And this:

"Fox News conducted a national presidential poll that had President Obama and Mitt Romney tied at 46% nationally. Third party candidates were at 1%, voters who remain undecided were at 3%, and voters who refused to answer were also at 3% nationwide. Fox News released their national presidential poll on October 31, 2012."

And this:

"ABC News/Washington Post conducted a national presidential poll that also had the presidential race as a statistical tie. President Obama and Mitt Romney were both at 49% nationally. Third party candidates were at 1% and voters with no opinion were also at 1% nationwide. ABC News/Washington Post released their national presidential poll on October 31, 2012."

And this:

"National Journal conducted a national presidential poll that had President Obama with a lead of 5 points. Obama was at 50% compared to 45% for Romney. Third party candidates combined with undecided voters were at 5% nationwide. National Journal released their national presidential poll on October 31, 2012."

So yeah, if you ignore the facts, ignore the actual poll results, and instead just pull numbers out of your ass, you can say that Mittens "led by 5 in all the biggies." You can say it but it won't be true.

Romney was way ahead in the polls (as long as you ignore the actual poll numbers) and he "won in a landslide," except a nonexistent group stole the election for Obama. And edumbshit knows he's right because a big group of ignorant dumbfucks agree with his theory.

That's a pretty unassailable position if you live in a bubble that filters out all of the facts. But in the real world it just sounds like the ranting of an idiot who denies inconvenient facts.

No, just 600K white lives. Or more, according to the NYT. 700K + white lives, to deal with the issue of black slaves.

Do you have a point?

Hot damn are you one incurable dumbass. You said, "Republicans, the ones who lost 600K American lives to end slavery..", which clearly means that you added the nearly 300k Confederate deaths to the Union losses and gave the total number of war dead as those who fought to preserve the Union. Hint: In a war, there are two sides. One side that fights for something that the other is against. The Republicans (Union soldiers, actually - there was a conscription that did not discriminate based on political affiliation) did not lose 600k lives, but roughly half that. The remainder is the Confederate deaths who fought to remain seceded from the Union - for the express purpose of being able to keep and expand the institution of slavery, and NOT to "end" it.

To confuse the cause of Union deaths with the cause of Confederate deaths is as stupid as saying that Japanese and German WWII deaths were caused by a need to repel and vanquish the Axis powers. No, that was the cause of the Allies. THE TWO SIDES FOUGHT FOR TWO DIFFERENT, OPPOSITE AIMS - as is the case in ALL war. Axis deaths were CAUSED BY Axis aggression. Axis deaths would not have occurred had the former aim been accepted, rather than the OPPOSITE aim, i.e. that of Axis domination.

You don't seem to understand the concept of opposite aims.

The confederacy rebelled because an anti-slavery white guy was elected president. The dispute over slavery cost over a half million white lives.

Black lives, too - but I suppose you don't think they counted.

And here's another part where you're wrong. Lincoln's anti-slavery aims, to whatever extent they existed in 1860, were overshadowed by his pro-Union ambitions. These were not completely synonymous. You have a lot of history to learn, assuming you are capable of keeping two facts together in your head.

Lastly, my snark is anything but stupid. It reflects my frustration at the irony of your obsessive inability to understand the simplest of concepts.

But evil Koch is not making renewables cheaper, or making education better. It's all his fault, dammit. Notice that nothing that you mentioned has anything to do with individual choice of yours...

Yup. It's his fault for maintaining those unneeded subsidies and re-segregating North Carolina schools. Please tell me what individual, personal choice I could have made to prevent that.

Ahm. Poor pay no federal income taxes, and they maybe pay some social security taxes.

They pay payroll taxes, Sir Asshole.

The parasites and the creators - who is evil? The creators, of course, they are not giving enough to the parasites.

Oh great. Now this shit.

I'd love to know what your hourly or yearly pay is. Tell me how many inventions you patented and people you hired.

People like you talk out your ass like there's no tomorrow. We know about whom you've deemed worthy of idolization. We also know that you also tend to be mere peons yourselves. Merely peons who prefer to be reminded of it and have the point reinforced more strenuously. Good for you. Also, speak for yourself.

The party of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and rev.Wright are talking about racism. Sigh.

Oh, I know. Do tell us of how aggrieved you have been with personal examples of how blacks somehow denied you a right to vote, a fair trial, a right to not be racially intimidated by law enforcement. What an arrogant and stupid piece of garbage you are!

And not that you are empirically astute enough to know it, but the "Southern Strategy" was hardly "mythical". Lee Atwater's own words attest to it. We have the quotes. You have the denial, no doubt. But the quotes exist. Denying them does not make them "myth". Very great is your capacity for denial.